Imaginary or Real Marsh?[2]

Published:First published in 1931 inLenin Miscellany XVII.

      Written (in German) in late January 1917.

      Translated from the German.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 23,

      pages278-281.Translated:M. S. Levin, The Late Joe Fineberg and and OthersTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2002

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Inhis article on the majority and minority (Berner
TagwachtandNeues Leben) Comrade R. Grimm maintains that,
“we too invented” “the marsh, an imaginary Centrist trend in the
party”.

Weshall prove that the stand taken by Grimm in this article is a
typically Centrist one.

Inhis polemic with the majority, Grimm writes:

“Nopartythat subscribes to Zimmerwald and Kienthal has
advocated refusal to serve in the army and simultaneously obligated its
members to put that slogan into effect. Liebknecht himself donned military
uniform and entered the army. The Italian party has confined itself to
rejecting war credits and civil peace. The French minority has done
likewise.”

Werub our eyes in sheer astonishment. We reread this important passage
in Grimm’s article and advise the reader to ponder on it.

Incrediblebut true! To prove that we invented the Centrist trend, a
representative of this very Centre, Grimm, lumps together the Left
internationalists (Liebknecht) and the Zimmerwald Right or Centre!!!

DoesGrimm really think that he can deceive the Swiss workers and
convince them that Liebknecht and the Italian party belong to one and the
same trend? That they are not separated by thevery differencethat distinguishes the Left from the Centre?

Letus set outourarguments:

First,let us hear a witness who does not belong either to the Centre
or to the Left. The German social-imperialist Ernst Heilmann wrote inDie
Glocke[3]of August 12, 1916,p. 772: ...“Die
			 Arbeitsgemeinschaft,[1]or the Zimmerwald Right, of which Kautsky is the theoretician and
Haase and Ledebour the political leaders...” Can Grimm challenge the fact
that Kautsky, Haase and Ledebour are typical men of the Centre?

Second,can Grimm be unaware of the fact that in present-day socialism
the Zimmerwald Right or Centre isopposedto an immediate break
with the I.S.B., the International Socialist Bureau in The Hague, thebureau of social-patriots?  That the Leftfavourssuch a
break? That at Kienthal representatives of theInternationalegroup—the group to which Liebknecht belongs—fought against convocation
of the I.S.B. and insisted on a break with it?

Third,has Grimm forgotten that social-pacifism, directly condemned by
the Kienthal resolution, has now become the platform of the Centre in
France, Germany and Italy? That the whole Italian party, which did not
protest either against the numerous social-pacifist resolutions and
statements of its parliamentary group, or against Turati’s disgraceful
December 17 speech, subscribes to social-pacifism? That both Left groups in
Germany, the I.S.D. (International Socialists of Germany) and theInternationale(or Spartacus group to which Liebknecht belongs),
haveforthrightly rejectedthe social-pacifism of the Centre? Nor
should it be forgotten that the worst social-imperialists and
social-patriots in France, led by Sembat, Renaudel and Jouhaux,likewisevoted for social-pacifist resolutions, thereby strikingly
demonstrating and exposing the real, objective meaning of social-pacifism.

Fourth...but enough! Grimm is expounding precisely the Centrist view
when he advises the Swiss party to “satisfy itself” with rejection of
credits and civil peace, as the Italian party has done. Grimm criticises
the majority proposal precisely from the Centrist standpoint, because the
majority wants to move nearer toLiebknecht’sstandpoint.

Grimmcalls for clarity, frankness and honesty. Very well! But don’t
these virtuous qualities call for a clear, frank and honest distinction
between the views and tacticsof Liebknecht and those of the Centre, which should not be lumped together?

Toside with Liebknecht implies:
(1) attacking the main enemy in your own country;
(2) exposing the social-patriots of your own country and (with your
permission, Comrade Grimm!) not merely ofothercountries;
combating them, and not uniting with them—as you do—against, the Left
Radicals;
(3) openly criticising and exposing the weaknesses not only of the
social-patriots, but also of the social-pacifists and Centrists of your own
country;
(4) utilising the parliamentary tribune to summon the proletariat to
revolutionary struggle, urging it to turn its weapons against its enemy;
(5) circulating illegal literature and organising illegal meetings;
(6) organising proletarian demonstrations such as, for in stance, the
demonstration on Potsdam Square in Berlin at which Liebknecht was arrested;
(7) calling on the workers in the war industries to strike, as theInternationalegroup has done through its illegal leaflets;
(8) openly demonstrating the need for complete “regeneration” of the
present par ties, which confine themselves to reformist activity; acting as
Liebknecht acted;
(9) unreservedly rejecting defence of the fatherland in an imperialist war;
(10) fighting reformism and opportunism within the Social-Democratic
movement all along the line;
(11) just as relentlessly combating the trade union leaders, who in all
countries, particularly Germany, England and Switzerland, are the vanguard
of social-patriotism and opportunism, etc.

Clearly,fromthispoint of view much in the majority draft is
subject to criticism. But that can be discussed only in a separate
article. Here it is necessary to emphasise that the majority at any rate
proposes certain steps inthisdirection, while Grimm attacks the
majority not from the Left, but from theRight, not from
Liebknecht’s positions, but from those of the Centre.

Throughouthis article Grimm confuses two fundamentally different
questions: first, the question ofwhen, at what precise moment,
should one or another revolutionary action be carried out. Attempts to
decide that question in advance are meaningless, and Grimm is only throwing
dust in the workers’ eyes when he reproaches the majority on this point.

Secondquestion:howto refashion, transform a party nowincapableof conducting a systematic, persistent and, under any
concrete conditions, genuinely revolutionary struggle into a partycapableof waging this struggle.

Andthat is the cardinal question. Here we have the veryrootof the whole controversy, of the whole struggle of trends, both on the war
issue and on defence of the father land!  But that is the very question
Grimm tries to pass over in silence, gloss over, obscure. More: Grimm’s
explanations boil down todenyingthe very existence of this
question.

Everythingremains as of old—that idea runs through his
whole article. In this lies the most profound justification of the
contention that the article speaks for theCentre. Every thing
remains as of old:onlyrejection of war credits and civil peace!
Every intelligent bourgeois is bound to admit that, in the final analysis,
this isnot unacceptableto the bourgeoisie too: this does not
threaten its domination, does not prevent it from prosecuting the war (“we
submit” as the “minority of the country”—these words of Grimm’s have
very far-reaching political implications, much more than would appear at
first sight!).

Andisn’t it an international fact that the bourgeoisie itself, and its
governments in the warring countries, primarily England and Germany, arepersecuting onlysupporters of Liebknecht and aretoleratingmen of the Centre?

Forward,to the Left, even if this means the resignation of certain
social-patriot leaders! This, in a few words, is the political point and
purpose of the majority proposals.

Retreatfrom Zimmerwald to the Right, to social-pacifism, to positions
of the Centre, to “peace” with the social-patriot leaders, no mass
action, no revolutionising of the movement, no regeneration of the party!
That is Grimm’s point of view.

Itis to be hoped that, at long last, it will open the eyes of the
Swiss Left Radicals to his Centrist position.

[1]Commonwealthof Labour.—Ed.

[2]Thisarticle was written in reply to one by Robert Grimm. “Mehrheit und
Minderheit in der Militärfrage” (“Majority and Minority on the War
Issue”), in theBerner Tagwachtof January 23–27, 1917
(Nos. 19–23) and the magazineNeues Leben(New Life) No. 1 for
1917.

[3]DieGlocke(The Bell)—a fortnightly magazine published in Munich
and later in Berlin in 1915–25 by Parvus (Alexander Gelfand), a
social-chauvinist member of the German Social-Democratic Party.